Research Design

The various partners in this research project had very different views of how to ensure the validity of the research. The women of the NFU were interested in ensuring that the voices and experiences of farm women were a significant part of the study. However, the major funding agency (Agriculture and Agrifood Canada) was sceptical of the qualitative methodologies traditionally associated with feminist research and its representatives were convinced that research based on qualitative methods would be biased. They demanded that the research use quantitative methods and that the research protocol be subject to review by the agency. As Kwan (2002) notes, public policy makers are often more convinced by “hard” data obtained through quantitative techniques. To try to ensure the research findings would be taken seriously by government agencies and that farm women would feel their views were well represented, I worked with Statistics Canada and the project advisory committee to develop a multi-strategy research approach to combine quantitative and qualitative methodologies to meet the requirements of the two major groups.

Feminist research has often been criticised for bias, arising from the both the qualitative approaches favoured by researchers and the emphasis on political change (Letherby 2003). However, Letherby (2003:65) cites McFarlane (1990) who notes that official statistics are “anything but neutral, objective and value free”. This observation is

4 There are many non-traditional farm families where bachelor brothers farm together, parents farm with unmarried sons or daughters, single women or men farm on their own, or same-sex couples farm.

especially pertinent for this project. The assumption that farmers were male and responsible for the farm work meant that data gathered by Statistics Canada for

Canadian farms was, for decades, based on a single, usually male, farm operator. That the long-term systematic bias inherent in this approach to farm work has made the roles and work of women on farms invisible has been noted by researchers in Australia (Alston 1998); Ireland (O’Hara 1994); and the United States (Lobao and Meyer 2001).

3.4.1 Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods

The choice of qualitative or quantitative research methods is still a source of heated debate among researchers and certain methods are entrenched in particular disciplines. I have already mentioned the differing perspectives between two of the major supporters of the research, one of which demanded quantitative methods and the other who felt their goals would be better met with qualitative methodologies. However, each of these methodologies has its strengths and limitations and by using both in a multi-strategy approach, they can enhance each other.

Neuman (2000) states that quantitative social research is characterized by a detached researcher, measuring objective facts, a focus on variables, many cases or subjects, hypothesis testing, statistical analysis, and a claim to reliability and being value free.

The main preoccupations of quantitative researchers are measurement, causality, generalization and replication (Bryman 2001). As mentioned previously, the primary funder of the research project favoured the use of quantitative methods on the

assumption that the results would be more reliable and value free. However, quantitative methods have been subjected to a number of criticisms including not acknowledging the ability of humans for self reflection, an artificial sense of precision and accuracy, a lack of connection between research and everyday life and their failure to capture the complexity and richness of people’s lives and experiences (Bryman 2001;

Kwan 2002). Sundberg (2003: 182) disputes the theorization of the researcher as detached or “invisible, unmarked by social position, gender, race, and personal/political interests’ and able to offer “unbiased reflections of the world as it really is”. Instead she argues that the researcher’s geographic location, social status, race and gender

fundamentally shape the questions asked, the data collected and the interpretation of the data.

With qualitative methods, the researcher aims to generate concepts and theory inductively from the data, rather than to test theory deductively. The researcher is involved; the goal is to construct social reality and cultural meaning; the focus is on interactive processes and events; there are often a small number of cases or subjects;

analysis is based on themes; values are present and explicit; and authenticity is key (Neuman 2000). Qualitative researchers reject the assumed objectivity of quantitative methods in order to be engaged with the respondents and are more likely to include a large amount of description and detail in an attempt to provide context for behaviour and values as well as a background for the explanations that are valued in quantitative

research.

However, critics of qualitative research claim it is too subjective, difficult to replicate, cannot be generalized and lacks a transparent research process (Bryman 2001).

Acknowledging the subjective nature of qualitative research along with the close connections researchers build with their subjects and the unstructured nature of the research would all be considered positive by many feminist researchers as these give the researcher much greater insight into the lives of women. The women of the NFU were interested in developing an understanding of the complexity of the lives of farm families as well as in political action, project development, capacity building, and empowerment.

Consequently qualitative research methods were more appropriate for their goals.

Qualitative methods are very useful in research that aims to value women’s experiences and knowledge.

Although qualitative methods have traditionally been associated with feminist methodologies, a number of researchers have made the point that no method is

inherently feminist (McDowell 1992; 1997; Letherby 2003; Pini 2003). Rather it is the

“manner in which the methods are engaged, in the context of feminist theory and derived from a feminist epistemological and ontological position which makes them

feminist” (Pini 2003:420). However each method is useful for answering certain types of questions and the choice of methods for feminist research should be determined by their appropriateness in answering the research questions (Kwan 2002). Neuman (2000) argues that the best research often combines features of both qualitative and quantitative methods.

3.4.2 Multi-Strategy Approach

From the above discussion, it is clear that both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies have their strengths and their weaknesses. As Rose (2001:12) notes

“there is a growing sense that no single research method can provide a complete

understanding of a phenomenon (sic); each one poses limits to the type of understanding that can be gleaned”. In multi-strategy research, the two research approaches can be brought together to complement each other. Multi-strategy approaches enable

facilitation, triangulation and complementarity. Facilitation uses one research strategy to aid research using the other strategy. Triangulation involves cross-checking the results of one research strategy against the results of another research strategy in order to enhance confidence in the research. Complementarity involves using different research strategies to address different aspects of the research (Bryman 2001).

The research process was facilitated by using qualitative research strategies, with focus groups, to provide useful information for formulating research questions and guide the development of questionnaires so they more closely reflected the reality of farm family work. Open-ended questions in the questionnaires and focus groups at the end of the research enabled a much better understanding of the research themes that quantitative methods indicated were important. By using quantitative research methodologies, with questionnaires and time diaries, we were able to determine the relative importance of the themes that arose in the focus groups and literature reviews and use statistical analysis to explore broad relationships in the data.

Qualitative methods were also used for triangulation as the preliminary results of the research were subjected to the scrutiny of four focus groups of farm women interviewers

in a series of workshops lasting one day and an evening held in Sackville, New

Brunswick; near Guelph, Ontario; Edmonton, Alberta; and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

The data collected through the questionnaires were presented to the farm women interviewers. We discussed the reasons behind the patterns and the issues that the data raised as well as their experiences with the methodology. Other interested individuals were invited to evening presentations and discussions in these places.

Complementarity was created by using focus groups, questionnaires and time diaries- three different but related methodologies in a multi-strategy approach. Each of these methods measured the work of farm families in different, but complementary ways.

Using this approach increased the depth of understanding that could be gained from the research and increased confidence in the results. The controlled quota sampling

methods used in this research are sometimes criticised for their inability to produce results that can be generalized to a specific population (Doherty 1994). By using

qualitative methodologies involving focus groups to gain feedback and test the results of the research, I was able to increase my confidence in the results. Thus, a multi-strategy approach allowed me to draw on the strengths of qualitative and quantitative methods while at the same time reducing the weaknesses of each research strategy when used in isolation.